Someone sent me this Red Headed Blackbelt link from a few years ago, and at least at the time the Court Policy was that during June election years the GJ was not allowed to release reports from February until after the election.
This is the first report from the 2017-2018 Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury. Beginning this year, the Court implemented a new policy regarding the release of Grand Jury reports during June election years. The policy allows the release of reports until the second Monday in February; reports completed subsequent to that date must be released after the June election.
Was this policy subsequently reversed? I’ll call the Court tomorrow.
Sohum Parlance II 
137 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 2, 2022 at 9:14 pm
Henchman Of Justice
Humboldt County Administrative, DHHS, all departments ftmp… should not feel all alone…not when President Bird Poo-Pon’s administdation is failing similarly…
June 3, 2022 at 6:00 am
humboldturtle
Ahhhh – enlightenment. Now I understand why more people should volunteer to serve on Humboldt’s so-called Civil Grand Jury. The timing of this is corrupt as hell, and each member is part of it. Not civil, not grand, not even a jury – but we knew that.
June 3, 2022 at 7:26 am
Just Watchin
Yea…..but they’re woke !
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/seattle-police-halted-investigating-adult-sexual-assaults-this-year-internal-memo-shows/
June 3, 2022 at 7:32 am
Just Watchin
The type of person that democrats adore….
June 3, 2022 at 8:43 am
Henchman Of Justice
…and the State SCO appears to have a similar policy it appears…why propagandize an SCO report to be released in February but then not…
June 3, 2022 at 10:11 am
Eric Kirk
Well Henchman, the “paranoid” explanation is that the SCO report didn’t turn out to be what certain people wanted. But we won’t know until we read it, and I doubt it will come out before Tuesday.
June 3, 2022 at 11:04 am
Henchman Of Justice
Agreed EK, deadlines by and for the State to have prepared documents do not mean much to the State either… when they’re onbthe hook…
June 4, 2022 at 5:50 am
Anonymous
Looks like the answer to your original question about whether the release of this report violated court policy is “no” and the answer to your question of whether the policy in question had subsequently changed is “yes.”
“We have a different presiding judge now and the decision was that there would be no blocking of reports because of elections. That might change in the future with yet a different judge, but those are the guidelines we are operating under presently.”
https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2022/jun/3/civil-grand-jury-foreperson-addresses-timing-repor/
June 4, 2022 at 6:11 am
humboldturtle
So it was a judge, and not one of the two dozen committee members – not one – spoke up about timing this a few days prior to an election? That would be a conspiracy, a conspiracy of the silenced and cowed. Ugly, ugly, ugly.
June 4, 2022 at 6:16 am
Anonymous
Yes, accusing people of conspiracy without a shred of evidence is indeed ugly, ugly, ugly.
June 4, 2022 at 6:19 am
humboldturtle
That timing was planned, which makes it – a conspiracy. Look it up.
June 4, 2022 at 6:21 am
Anonymous
“That timing was planned.”
Well that’s your accusation, for which you have provided no evidence.
June 4, 2022 at 6:25 am
humboldturtle
J’accuse. The sequence of events that led to Rex Bohn on the courthouse steps waiting for a process server to approach the county auditor during a press conference is just one, big coincidence. Right.
June 4, 2022 at 6:25 am
Anonymous
Here are the members of the 2021-2022 Humboldt Grand Jury, the people you are smearing, sans evidence.
Eugene Biggins
Stephanie Boers
Wendy Butler
Katherine Eagan
Kelly Eckberg
Kevin (Tuck) Engelman
Jim Glover
Michele Fell
Frederick Hebert
Victoria Joyce
Robert Kapus
Lyn Klay
Jim Knerl
Shannon Koczera
Linda Kuiper
Gabrielle Long
Jay Molofsky
Bob Phibbs
June 4, 2022 at 6:31 am
humboldturtle
Humboldt’s own Conspiracy of Silence. What a pity, really.
June 4, 2022 at 7:01 am
Carol Conners
Anyone can cut and paste the names of the civil grand jury. You write nothing that is impressive. You have already stated that you support KPD’s opponent.
Why did they only interview KPD twice – the second interview was just last week AFTER they finished the report? If I was grading papers, this report would be a given an incomplete.
June 4, 2022 at 7:05 am
Carol Conners
This was an obvious set up.
June 4, 2022 at 7:39 am
Mitch
Speaking for myself, having heard that the grand jury met with the Auditor-Controller only once before completing its report, and having read below that the grand jury managed to not interview “any Auditor‐Controller staff or relevant parties such as MGO, CLA, or KOA Hills,” all that this report does is confirm for me the challenges faced by anyone trying to deal with this county’s IMO despicable power structure, and the herds of grant-dependent executive directors ready to do its bidding. Looking away is an art form here. I’m not sure which group disgusts me more.
The Lost Coast Outpost provided a link to the grand jury’s production, annotated by the Auditor-Controller. Below are three of the report’s assertions and the Auditor-Controller’s comments.
If you’re a voter and haven’t voted yet, you could take a few moments and hear both sides, for a change:
progress was hampered due to the
Auditor-Controller making changes without giving notice to or consulting with other County departments
Commented [PDK5]: False. The Auditor‐Controller
hosted multiple trainings for County departments related to
changes made to fiscal processes and developed numerous
instructional manuals. The Auditor‐Controller
communicated with County departments regarding official
changes under the control of the Auditor‐Controller.
Progress was hampered due to the lack of cooperation from
County departments to comply with changes and the lack of
accounting expertise across County departments.
See documents in folder F11.
However, on Nov. 22, 2021, the Board gave specific direction by
adopting a resolution directed to the Auditor-Controller regarding the calculation and payment of interest to the General Fund. The Auditor-Controller did not comply.
Commented [PDK6]: The Auditor‐Controller does not
calculate interest to be apportioned to the General Fund;
the Treasurer‐Tax Collector calculates this interest per CA
Gov Code
This Grand Jury conducted an investigation after receiving complaints of financial inefficiencies, ineffective communications, and lack of cooperation with various governmental entities on the part of the Auditor-Controller and the Auditor-Controller’s office
Commented [PDK7]: This Grand Jury did not conduct an
actual investigation as that would have required the
collection of evidence to substantiate claims made by
interviewees and confirmations from independent third
parties. Additionally, this Grand Jury did not interview any
Auditor‐Controller staff or relevant parties such as MGO,
CLA, or KOA Hills. This report is merely a regurgitation of
repeated claims made by County department heads and
their staff of which there has been little to no evidence
June 4, 2022 at 7:47 am
humboldturtle
This the last weekend before the election. Expect desperate measures.
June 4, 2022 at 7:48 am
Mitch
And, PA, if you want evidence, the non-interviews are your place to start. I’m sorry you like some of the county’s compliant “get along” types. It makes you look ugly.
June 4, 2022 at 7:58 am
Anonymous
Sorry to see you joining the smear-the-grand-jury bandwagon, Mitch. And frankly a little surprised. It should be possible to disagree with their findings and dislike the timing without resorting to flimsy accusations of conspiracy.
June 4, 2022 at 8:03 am
Anonymous
“You have already stated that you support KPD’s opponent.”
False.
“If I was grading papers, this report would be a given an incomplete.”
I literally said the exact same thing in my comments on Eric’s original post about this report:
“If I was grading papers, this report would be a given an incomplete.”
June 4, 2022 at 8:03 am
Mitch
Not after reading the annotations. It was a hit job.
June 4, 2022 at 8:06 am
Anonymous
Sorry, my quote was:
“unfortunately I’d have to actually issue an “Incomplete” due to the lack of supporting documentation.”
June 4, 2022 at 8:07 am
Mitch
Have you read them? How would you respond. And how can you have any respect for a grand juror who didn’t raise their hand and ask why none of the non-interviewed were interviewed? Same old same old, and it’s the behavior I’ve come to respect from a “progressive” batch that votes down wind turbines and didn’t mind “free speech” calling for the murder of gay people. Humboldt progressive is more of an oxymoron than military intelligence.
June 4, 2022 at 8:08 am
Mitch
“expect” not “respect.”
June 4, 2022 at 8:08 am
Anonymous
“This the last weekend before the election. Expect desperate measures.”
Like smearing the grand jury members because you don’t like their findings. And accusing them of a conspiracy related to the timing of the release, even though that was decided by the presiding judge, not the grand jury members.
June 4, 2022 at 8:11 am
Mitch
“Findings” implies research. Read the annotations, PA.
June 4, 2022 at 8:13 am
Mitch
So often, tragedies have a streak of dark humor hidden inside. Here in Humboldt, it’s the mutual admiration society of incompetents.
June 4, 2022 at 8:28 am
Anonymous
I’m in the process of making my way through Paz Dominguez’s response.
In my comments on Eric’s original post (see link a couple comments above) I faulted the grand jury for not providing footnotes and supporting documents to back up their findings.
But I guess I’m on Team Evil for objecting to the flimsy basis for smearing members of the grand jury as corrupt participants in a deliberate effort to pervert the grand jury process for electoral purposes.
June 4, 2022 at 8:33 am
Mitch
I’ll go with your characterization once you’ve finished reading the report and the annotations, and explain how it is totally reasonable that no interviews were done with people so central to the issues at hand. I’ll go with your characterization once you point out that KPD is wrong about the law in her annotations. Until then, I wouldn’t call it smearing. I’d say it’s calling out a bunch of people who are happy to warm seats.
June 4, 2022 at 8:34 am
Mitch
Ooh, look! A grant via DHHS! It lets us do *so much* for the people.
June 4, 2022 at 8:39 am
Mitch
And, in case you missed it, maybe you should read this from Nezzie Wade’s resignation from the HRC. She’s referring to Jim Glover, now the grand jury’s… uh, what… spokesperson:
Here’s how she put it in her resignation letter:
“It was in relationship to the message line calls and email communications retrieved by a commissioner acting as the courier for the commission, that I became extremely inflamed over the course of two consecutive meeting (October and November) in which the reports and communications sent to the commission describing instances of vigilante violence in Southern Humboldt reported to the commission via the phone line and email were not revealed to the commission in a way that allowed the grave situations described in these communications to be disclosed to the commission. A violation of privacy and confidentiality occurred when the commissioner acted upon the information in the communications without authority from the originators or the commission, by disclosing the names of complainants and their issues to parties outside of the commission thus compromising the investigation and the ethical standing of the commission in the community. A real travesty occurred when the actual situations of violence were minimized and reported in their entirety as “possible vigilante activity” rather than actual occurrences with the documentation. The standard forms for intake on the message line were never submitted to the secretary nor email declarations of the victims of vigilante violence as clarified when I requested copies of them from the secretary, received no response prior to the November meeting, and was informed by the secretary that the commission did not have them; thus, no one had access to the information except the commissioner acting as courier at that point, nearly two months beyond the initial reports. It was in this context that I stated my intention to resign which I am now acting upon.”
https://kymkemp.com/2017/09/18/the-humboldt-county-human-rights-commission-isnt-doing-their-job-writes-john-hardin-in-letter-to-the-editor/
June 4, 2022 at 8:54 am
Anonymous
I have no idea whether these claims made in this blast from the past are accurate or not, but it’s worth pointing that it’s one person’s account, presented with no evidence or corroboration, which means you don’t know either. But it serves your purposes of smearing the Grand Jury, so you decided to share it.
June 4, 2022 at 8:56 am
Mitch
Oh, right, PA. I managed to dig out this deep dark secret from Kym Kemp’s blog and share it with the public… after Jim Glover did something I would consider suspicious. How one-sided of me, to present someone’s resignation letter as if it were presenting facts. I’m sure Jim Glover can hold a press conference to correct the errors. He’s apparently real good at that.
June 4, 2022 at 8:57 am
Mitch
That was sarcasm. I keep forgetting where I am.
June 4, 2022 at 8:58 am
Anonymous
“How one-sided of me, to present someone’s resignation letter as if it were presenting facts.”
Yes.
June 4, 2022 at 9:00 am
Mitch
Can we return to the business at hand? How’s your reading going?
June 4, 2022 at 9:03 am
Mitch
PA,
It is a resignation letter, written by a person resigning a commission, explaining why they are resigning. I’m sure there is another side. I look forward to hearing it. But one thing I’ve noticed in my thirty plus years in this county is that people go a lot by labels. Oh, the DHHS! They must be good because they’ve got H’s in their name. Oh, look, the Grand Jury. They must be honest. The labels do not reflect reality. This is a place where environmentalists hate wind turbines, and a circle-jerk of white dudes and dudettes think they are good guys, because they constantly give one another awards.
June 4, 2022 at 9:15 am
Anonymous
Just a reminder: The subject of this post was Eric’s question about whether the grand jury violated court policy by releasing this report.
The answer appears to be no, the policy in question changed. And that policy change was made by the presiding judge, not the Grand Jury.
The fact that this accusation against the Grand Jury didn’t pan out seems to have disappointed HumboldtTurtle, so instead he shifted to accusing the members of the Grand Jury of engaging in a “conspiracy.”
I probably should have just let it go at that. Conspiracy True Believers tend to have a hard time understanding why those not in the True Believer camp don’t see the flimsy, circumstantial and tangential “evidence” they present as real solid evidence that any reasonable person would have to believe. The lack of belief is then portrayed as more evidence that the non-believer is just another member of the conspiracy.
And from there it’s conspiratorial turtles all the way down.
June 4, 2022 at 9:19 am
Eric Kirk
Well, John Glover says no. I would like to hear from the Court on that question. I’m kind of curious as to why no judge signature was included with the publication of the report.
June 4, 2022 at 9:20 am
Eric Kirk
And then the question is – why do you suppose Judge Hinrichs made that rule, even if the current judge isn’t honoring it? Do you think she might have had a reason?
What is the practice in other counties?
This report wasn’t just released between February and June. It was a classic slimeball “Thursday before election dump.”
June 4, 2022 at 9:22 am
Anonymous
Mitch, I have now finished reading Paz Dominguez’s annotations. I’m inclined to believe the Grand Jury report contains some errors, Unfortunately so many of Paz Dominguez’s annotations simply state that a particular finding is “false” and that documentation is in the process of being gathered to support this assertion of falsehood. So I guess we have to wait for that documentation. Some of her annotations are just “No.” or “What? No.” Which is profoundly unhelpful.
June 4, 2022 at 9:30 am
Anonymous
“Well, John Glover says no. I would like to hear from the Court on that question.”
Your original post said you would call the court to inquire “tomorrow” (which would have been Friday).
So…did you?
Also, did you consider it might have been a better idea to just get the answer first, before posting the accusation-in-the-form-of-a-question first?
I provided Jim Glover’s response, because you didn’t bother to update your post with an answer to your question.
If Jim Glover is lying about this and the Grand Jury actually violated court policy with this release, that would indeed be newsworthy.
But again, I guess you’re “just asking questions.”
Hopefully this time you’ll at least follow up with an answer, since you’ve pretty clearly implied you think Glover might be lying about this.
Unless, of course, the purpose is simply to smear him and the other members of the Grand Jury with the accusation-in-the-form-of-a-question and then just leave it dangling?
But don’t worry, I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, I’m just asking the question!
June 4, 2022 at 9:30 am
Mitch
I could easily be wrong, but I believe what Loco put out was a very preliminary response by the Auditor-Controller. I agree it needs badly to be fleshed out, but I’m also aware of how little time the A-C would have had to do this between the surprise release of the report and her press conference.
As you say, it appears there are errors in the grand jury report. What I’d like to know is how it is possible such a report was finished and released before so many participants were interviewed. That, IMO, lends credibility to the idea that this was yet another group of people rubber-stamping the behavior of the people they like.
I can add that I would have found it frustrating to keep releasing documents that the press mostly ignores, and being asked to prove the same things over and over. I would have given up long ago, which is why my admiration for Karen continues to grow as the smear campaign against her continues.
Thank you for at least reading a bit of her side of things, and my apology for overreacting. Anything connected with this county’s government puts me in a bad, reactive mood. PTSD at work, most likely.
June 4, 2022 at 9:30 am
Eric Kirk
Purple – you can access her references there. I do agree that she should have left the adjectives and legal sounding objections out of it. I helped to prep her for the press conference in which I told her “more facts, fewer adjectives.”
She followed our advice beautifully. Even apologized for the “emotional” responses in the writing.
Here’s a direct link to the documentation, including “folder 11” which is often referenced in her comments.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17QPIse6HarsrgwXQEb_RaCCVLhJHHYmK
June 4, 2022 at 9:37 am
Henchman Of Justice
Ya, Tuck has had his fingers in a lot over the years..he is like the wishing well that keeps on giving… for decades… good ol fart in sports too…
personally, would not mind at all too see 100% of Tuck’s testimonials on the A/C spat, and if it is not fair, welp… then what?
Tuck is soccer family, but if Tuck did wrong on the HCGJ, then not good…
June 4, 2022 at 9:39 am
Eric Kirk
And let’s be clear as to what the GJ did. They had one initial meeting with her, and then one at the end of last week. Nothing in between. No indication in the report that they talked to any of her staff. This is a lot like the “bullying” report.
Unfortunately she can’t talk about what happened at the meetings. That’s the law. But you can review her evidence, and the GJ report, and realize that they accounted for none of her input – not even to reject it! Just completely omitted it.
Do I think the whole GJ is part of a grand conspiracy? No, I think certain individuals pushed a direction and the rest passively went along with it – not uncommon. We know from a couple of whistleblowers that this happened with the Josiah Lawson GJ.
So did the GJ not consider her evidence because they didn’t believe it? Or because they didn’t understand it? Or because they were in too much of a hurry for the Thursday dump?
June 4, 2022 at 9:39 am
Mitch
What I’ve seen over this campaign is a group of people claiming that things were delayed due to an office, when it turns out those things were delayed by their own staffs, not the scapegoated office. I’ve seen complaints that no training was provided, when training was offered to all. I’ve seen complaints that things were changed, when the changes that introduced problems were done against the advice of the scapegoated office, and the scapegoated office was then blamed for the problems the ill-advised changes caused.
I have my own perspective that I bring to things, just like everyone else. From my perspective, KPD is worth more than the entire rest of the county “leadership’s” little finger.
June 4, 2022 at 9:41 am
Mitch
I think that should have been KPD’s little finger, but when I think of fingers, I just immediately think of this county’s leadership.
June 4, 2022 at 9:42 am
Henchman Of Justice
PHPA fails to discuss the obvious in PHPA’S fact finding mission, such a lazy shit…
UPDATE, 6:05 p.m.:
We emailed Civil Grand Jury foreperson Jim Glover this afternoon asking for more information, noting that a 2018 press release from the court said:
Beginning this year, the Court implemented a new policy regarding the release of Grand Jury reports during June election years. The policy allows the release of reports until the second Monday in February; reports completed subsequent to that date must be released after the June election.
Is that policy still in place? we asked. And if so, why wasn’t it followed this year?
Glover replied:
That was of great concern to us many months ago. We have a different presiding judge now and the decision was that there would be no blocking of reports because of elections. That might change in the future with yet a different judge, but those are the guidelines we are operating under presently.
Hope that answers your question.
2018 press release FROM THE LOCAL COURT
versus
Individual explanation (which amounts to shit)
Where is the Press Release from The Local Court that changed AFTER 2018… what’s that, the general public was kept in the dark once the new A/C took over AFTER already whistleblowing previous to 2018 election…
PHPA is a dumb fucker thinking people don’t see through the muck…
The Court is complicit in the myriad of local frauds and abuses…no such thing as Justice… bunch of pudd fucker insider shoulder rubbers…
June 4, 2022 at 9:46 am
Henchman Of Justice
In one hand, PHPA uses an actual Court Press Release…
In the other hand, PHPA uses an individual’s presentation…
Hmmm, Court transparency or individual’s tag your it presentation…
Ya, such equality…🤷♂️
June 4, 2022 at 9:56 am
Anonymous
Yes, Eric, I read her annotations. And I give her credit for backing some of them up. Unfortunately many did not provide such backup, they simply asserted that the accusations were false and that documentation is in the process of being gathered. I also recognize that was probably inevitable given the short time-frame. If/when her responses are updated with more documentation I will be happy to read them, even if it’s after the election.
I tried following some of her references to items in “folder 11,” but without further explanation I had a hard time trying to discern how the documents in “folder 11” proved her claims.
I will repeat what I said in my comments on your original post about this report: That I really wish that (1) the Grand Jury report had included its own footnotes and documentation, and (2) the report could have been released a month or two ago so that the disputes of fact could have been explored in depth by the press and the public.
So I agree that the timing of the report’s release is problemmatic. But that’s different from jumping to the conclusion that it represents a deliberate, conspiratorial effort on the part of the Grand Jury to pervert the process for electoral purposes.
Of course to those who already wholeheartedly believed in a widespread, deeply rooted conspiracy to stack the deck against Paz Dominguez, it’s an easy jump to make. And that’s the crux of the problem.
The atmosphere is already so toxic that not only are we getting flimsily-based accusations of malfeasance by the grand jury for releasing their report before the election, we even have speculation that maybe the State Controller’s report exonerates Paz Dominguez but has been held until after the election for similarly nefarious purposes.
Of course if the State Controller’s report had been released a month ago and was critical of Paz Dominguez, I’m pretty sure that too would have been attacked as part of the Grand Conspiracy.
June 4, 2022 at 9:57 am
Henchman Of Justice
all that this report does is confirm for me the challenges faced by anyone trying to deal with this county’s IMO despicable power structure, and the herds of grant-dependent executive directors ready to do its bidding. ~ Mitch
Henchy vindicated yet again on the subject issue of a grant deoendent county structure…
All Thanks directed to Tad, the real whistle-blower of DHHS and others…
Humboldt sucks in big part because of the greedy grant whores… fuck ’em traitors…
…the fact that Henchy volunteered for so many years sucks, in part, because now, looking back, Henchy witnesses some of the former kids have turned into complete back-stabbing abusers… some do it for partisan politics while others do it because they are local government employees… it was bad enough understanding some kids would turn to the dark side of business, but local governance… smh…
June 4, 2022 at 9:58 am
Henchman Of Justice
PHPA fails to discuss the obvious in PHPA’S fact finding mission, such a lazy shit…
UPDATE, 6:05 p.m.:
We emailed Civil Grand Jury foreperson Jim Glover this afternoon asking for more information, noting that a 2018 press release from the court said:
Beginning this year, the Court implemented a new policy regarding the release of Grand Jury reports during June election years. The policy allows the release of reports until the second Monday in February; reports completed subsequent to that date must be released after the June election.
Is that policy still in place? we asked. And if so, why wasn’t it followed this year?
Glover replied:
That was of great concern to us many months ago. We have a different presiding judge now and the decision was that there would be no blocking of reports because of elections. That might change in the future with yet a different judge, but those are the guidelines we are operating under presently.
Hope that answers your question.
2018 press release FROM THE LOCAL COURT
versus
Individual explanation (which amounts to shit)
Where is the Press Release from The Local Court that changed AFTER 2018… what’s that, the general public was kept in the dark once the new A/C took over AFTER already whistleblowing previous to 2018 election…
PHPA is a dumb fucker thinking people don’t see through the muck…
The Court is complicit in the myriad of local frauds and abuses…no such thing as Justice… bunch of pudd fucker insider shoulder rubbers…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 4, 2022 at 9:46 am
Henchman Of Justice
In one hand, PHPA uses an actual Court Press Release…
In the other hand, PHPA uses an individual’s presentation…
Hmmm, Court transparency or individual’s tag your it presentation…
Ya, such equality…🤷♂️
June 4, 2022 at 10:08 am
Henchman Of Justice
Of course if the State Controller’s report had been released a month ago and was critical of Paz Dominguez, I’m pretty sure that too would have been attacked as part of the Grand Conspiracy. ~ PHPA, The Retard
of course, that is no different than the Grand Conspiracy surrounding deadline dates that are not met, and why…(County, SCO, AG)… doc’s filed…
…PHPA’S weak-ass attempt to lay blame on the A/C, it’s supporters… while offering zero facts while responding in commission of the very allegation PHOA claims others commit…
…PHPA is as flip-floppy as a trans-gender…
June 4, 2022 at 10:10 am
humboldturtle
“A conspiracy of silence, or culture of silence, describes the behavior of a group of people of some size, as large as an entire national group or profession or as small as a group of colleagues, that by unspoken consensus does not mention, discuss, or acknowledge a given subject. The practice may be motivated by positive interest in group solidarity or by such negative impulses as fear of political repercussion or social ostracism. ” Wikipedia.
Not grand at all.
June 4, 2022 at 10:11 am
Anonymous
My last comment was written before your 9:39 comment, which included:
“Do I think the whole GJ is part of a grand conspiracy? No, I think certain individuals pushed a direction and the rest passively went along with it.”
So, not a “grand conspiracy” just a conspiracy by “certain individuals” on the grand jury?
I guess these “certain individuals” must have also engineered the timing of the release? And then somehow tricked the presiding judge into approving it…unless the judge was in on the conspiracy too?
Still sounds pretty conspiratorial.
June 4, 2022 at 10:18 am
Eric Kirk
Yes, by just a few individuals. And yes, they absolutely did rush the conclusion of the report to get it to the public to influence the election, or they would have taken the time to address her input, whether it swayed them or they rejected it. They didn’t address it at all? Why? It would have taken time.
And I’m curious – do you have a link to the judge’s signature?
June 4, 2022 at 10:27 am
Anonymous
OK, so we’ve narrowed your accusation down to “just a few individuals.”
So, the next step would be: Which of these individuals are you accusing of being active members of this conspiracy, and which are you accusing of just going along with it?
Eugene Biggins
Stephanie Boers
Wendy Butler
Katherine Eagan
Kelly Eckberg
Kevin (Tuck) Engelman
Jim Glover
Michele Fell
Frederick Hebert
Victoria Joyce
Robert Kapus
Lyn Klay
Jim Knerl
Shannon Koczera
Linda Kuiper
Gabrielle Long
Jay Molofsky
Bob Phibbs
It’s easy to accuse groups of things, because it doesn’t require taking any real responsibility for the accusation or presenting any evidence. If a member of the group objects, you can always say “well, I wasn’t necessarily talking about that particular person.”
But in the meantime, you’re in effect casting aspersions on the entire group.
June 4, 2022 at 10:31 am
Anonymous
“And I’m curious – do you have a link to the judge’s signature?”
I don’t. For all I know Jim Glover told an obvious, easy to discover lie about the presiding judge having a different policy from the previous judge, and that Glover will soon be busted for that. I tend to doubt it, but I suppose anything’s possible.
Meanwhile, I’m curious too: Did you follow up with the court on Friday to ask about this, like you said you planned to do in your original post?
Or did you just let the accusation-in-the-form-of-a-question dangle.
June 4, 2022 at 10:39 am
humboldturtle
Aspersions on the entire group, like “hey, if you haven’t caught the problems with this, where have you been?” yes. Individual aspersions, no – though I am a bit curious about Jim Glover.
June 4, 2022 at 10:49 am
Anonymous
The “which individuals” question was directed to Eric, who has directly stated that “certain individuals” “absolutely did rush the conclusion of the report to get it to the public to influence the election.”
That’s a claim of individual wrongdoing, directed at unnamed individual members of the group, thus casting aspersions on the whole group until such time as the individuals alleged to be responsible for the wrongdoing are specified and thus the others excluded from the accusation.
June 4, 2022 at 10:55 am
Eric Kirk
Well the whole group did sign off on this thing, and had to have signed off on rushing it for the election. So yeah, it’s on them for letting Glover push them into this thing. I’m sorry that they’re going to suffer some embarrassment for it, but that’s what happens when you interject yourself into an election campaign.
June 4, 2022 at 11:00 am
humboldturtle
Yup. I knew that and interjected. Now for intent. Why?
June 4, 2022 at 11:01 am
Eric Kirk
And it’s a basic electoral strategy to dump crap on the Thursday before a Tuesday election. It’s the most optimal time because it allows for just enough time for the crap to solidify in voter brains, but not enough time for an effective response. It’s done every election – LoCo knows this as they’ve written about it.
So you have 364 other days in the year to release a “non-political” GJ report, and it just happens to come out on the dump Thursday? That’s such an incredible coincidence that the burden is really on the GJ to prove that the report and the timing of its release wasn’t motivated by an intention to influence the election.
June 4, 2022 at 11:05 am
Anonymous
OK, Eric, now it seems that you’ve named Glover as one of the “certain individuals” who allegedly conspired to “rush the conclusion of the report to get it to the public to influence the election.”
Who are the others?
June 4, 2022 at 11:07 am
Anonymous
Ah, so shifting the burden of evidence onto the accused to prove their innocence. Nice dodge.
June 4, 2022 at 11:09 am
Henchman Of Justice
PHPA fails to discuss the obvious in PHPA’S fact finding mission, such a lazy shit….
UPDATE, 6:05 p.m.:
We emailed Civil Grand Jury foreperson Jim Glover this afternoon asking for more information, noting that a 2018 press release from the court said:
Beginning this year, the Court implemented a new policy regarding the release of Grand Jury reports during June election years. The policy allows the release of reports until the second Monday in February; reports completed subsequent to that date must be released after the June election.
Is that policy still in place? we asked. And if so, why wasn’t it followed this year?
Glover replied:
That was of great concern to us many months ago. We have a different presiding judge now and the decision was that there would be no blocking of reports because of elections. That might change in the future with yet a different judge, but those are the guidelines we are operating under presently.
Hope that answers your question.
2018 press release FROM THE LOCAL COURT
versus
Individual explanation (which amounts to shit)
Where is the Press Release from The Local Court that changed AFTER 2018… what’s that, the general public was kept in the dark once the new A/C took over AFTER already whistleblowing previous to 2018 election…
PHPA is a dumb fucker thinking people don’t see through the muck…
The Court is complicit in the myriad of local frauds and abuses…no such thing as Justice… bunch of pudd fucker insider shoulder rubbers…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 4, 2022 at 9:46 am
Henchman Of Justice
In one hand, PHPA uses an actual Court Press Release…
In the other hand, PHPA uses an individual’s presentation…
Hmmm, Court transparency or individual’s tag your it presentation…
Ya, such equality…🤷♂️
June 4, 2022 at 11:22 am
Eric Kirk
Let’s make something clear – what’s at work here is a culture, not a conspiracy. And yes, Glover’s actions have been at best irresponsible. At best.
June 4, 2022 at 11:37 am
Anonymous
Imagine you’re a member of a Grand Jury that has recently completed a report that is critical of a public official who is up for re-election. Let’s assume for the purposes of this argument that you believe, in good faith, that your report contains an accurate accounting of the problems you’ve investigated.
Unfortunately by the time the report is complete, it’s the week before the election!
Now what? Do you:
(1) Release the report anyway? (In which case you open yourself to accusations of “injecting yourself into an election campaign” in order to damage the incumbents’ re-election chances), or
(2) Delay the report until after the election? (In which case you open yourself to accusations of “withholding your findings from the voters in order to protect the incumbent.”)
Neither seems very enticing. But the latter seems even more problemmatic than the former, IMHO. At least in the latter scenario, the voters have access to the information, but remain free to dismiss it based on the timing (based or the elected officials’ responses or because they believe the grand jury was biased, or whatever). Whereas in the latter case the voters are kept in the dark until after they’ve already voted.
Yes, I realize this dscenario doesn’t account for possibilities like “the investigation and analysis was already done long ago, report release was intentionally delayed until just before the election” and “the investigation and analysis wasn’t complete, report was intentionally ‘rushed’ to completion until just before the election.”
And I totally get that “Thursday before the election” raises suspicions that it could have been one of those latter scenarios.
I’m simply pointing out that while people who have already embraced a conspiracy narrative will likely feel certain that’s what they’re seeing, those of us not firmly committed to that conspiracy narrative may be inclined to at least consider less cynical alternative explanations.
June 4, 2022 at 11:48 am
Anonymous
“Let’s make something clear – what’s at work here is a culture, not a conspiracy. And yes, Glover’s actions have been at best irresponsible. At best.”
Interesting…a hour ago you agreed it was a conspiracy of “a few individuals.”
PA: So, not a “grand conspiracy” just a conspiracy by “certain individuals” on the grand jury?
Eric: Yes, by just a few individuals. And yes, they absolutely did rush the conclusion of the report to get it to the public to influence the election…”
Looks like you put your lawyer hat on and realized you were getting way out in front of your skis. Better late than never, I guess.
So now it’s just a safely nebulous reference to “a culture” and the grand jury foreman was “irreponsible,” which is safey in the realm of an opinion, as opposed to “absolutely did rush the conclusion of the report to get it to the public to influence the election” which is a much clearer accusation.
Nice backpedaling!
June 4, 2022 at 12:09 pm
Anonymous
Again, it’s not clear to me how deliberately withholding the report until after the election would hold less risk of having an influence on the outcome of the election than releasing it.
“Well we would have released it since it was ready, but we didn’t want to risk harming the re-election chances of the incumbent.”
…seems substantially less defensible than…
“We realized that it could effect the election, but it was ready and this is what we found, so we felt the best thing was to release it and let the voters decide for themselves.”
Here’s another little thought experiment. Let’s say the report had mostly exonerated Paz Dominguez and pinned most of the blame on others, but the Grand Jury had chosen to wait to release the report until after the election even though it was ready to go last week. Would Paz Dominguez supporters have accused the Grand Jury of seeking to influence the outcome of election by delaying its release? I strongly suspect some of the same people making outraged “process” arguments here would have been making them in the other direction.
Indeed, chief Humboldt Deep State conspiracy theorist and rabid Paz Dominguez superfan Thomas Edrington has basically admitted as much in one of his comments on LoCO:
“Thomas K. Edrington Don Christensen • 18 hours ago
If it favored her, they would have waited until after the election.”
Does anyone really doubt what his reaction would have been if it had played out that way?
June 4, 2022 at 12:54 pm
Henchman Of Justice
PHPA fails to discuss the obvious in PHPA’S fact finding mission, such a lazy shit…
UPDATE, 6:05 p.m.:
We emailed Civil Grand Jury foreperson Jim Glover this afternoon asking for more information, noting that a 2018 press release from the court said:
Beginning this year, the Court implemented a new policy regarding the release of Grand Jury reports during June election years. The policy allows the release of reports until the second Monday in February; reports completed subsequent to that date must be released after the June election.
Is that policy still in place? we asked. And if so, why wasn’t it followed this year?
Glover replied:
That was of great concern to us many months ago. We have a different presiding judge now and the decision was that there would be no blocking of reports because of elections. That might change in the future with yet a different judge, but those are the guidelines we are operating under presently.
Hope that answers your question.
2018 press release FROM THE LOCAL COURT
versus
Individual explanation (which amounts to shit)
Where is the Press Release from The Local Court that changed AFTER 2018… what’s that, the general public was kept in the dark once the new A/C took over AFTER already whistleblowing previous to 2018 election…
PHPA is a dumb fucker thinking people don’t see through the muck…
The Court is complicit in the myriad of local frauds and abuses…no such thing as Justice… bunch of pudd fucker insider shoulder rubbers…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 4, 2022 at 9:46 am
Henchman Of Justice
In one hand, PHPA uses an actual Court Press Release…
In the other hand, PHPA uses an individual’s presentation…
Hmmm, Court transparency or individual’s tag your it presentation…
Ya, such equality…..🤷♂️
June 4, 2022 at 1:01 pm
Henchman Of Justice
EK, do ya have that date for which the HCGJ was formerly tasked by The Local Court to investigate the A/C, County spat?
The back-channeling and reverse deconstruction of the people involved in forcing the HCGJ to manufacture a report… are which people by name?🤷♂️
Of Course, PHPA avoids presenting that evidence, and even the suggestion of those names not on a public list must be denigrating personally to PHPA…
June 4, 2022 at 1:41 pm
Mitch
In your hypotheticals, PA, you have yet to include some facts we know about the report — namely that in generating it, the grand jury did not interview A-C staff or staff of various organizations brought in to assist the county, and only interviewed the A-C once in August 2021.
So perhaps your hypothetical should read: “We realized that it could effect the election, but we’d already interviewed the department heads who are scapegoating the A-C office, and this is what we found, so we felt the best thing was to release it and let the voters decide for themselves.”
June 4, 2022 at 1:49 pm
Anonymous
Yes, when you insert your pejorative judgement of “scapegoating” it becomes an entirely different hypothetical.
That’s kinda what I meant in noting that those who have already embraced the they’re-all-out-to-get-her conspiracy narrative are bound to process events very differently from those of us who haven’t.
June 4, 2022 at 1:55 pm
Jon Yalcinkaya
Interesting that just after you mention what you consider a pejorative you go right back to strong-arming yours, when Eric has provided what he (and I) believe to be true – it’s a culture at work not a conspiracy.
I can say this as some embedded deeply in the administrative culture, it’s real, and playing ball comes with perks.
June 4, 2022 at 1:58 pm
Mitch
You’re right, PA. It should have read: “We realized that it could effect the election, but we’d already interviewed the department heads, didn’t feel a need to interview the A-C staff or outside staff, interviewed the A-C once, and this is what we found, so we felt the best thing was to release it and let the voters decide for themselves.”
June 4, 2022 at 1:59 pm
Henchman Of Justice
PHPA fails to discuss the obvious in PHPA’S fact finding mission, such a lazy shit…
UPDATE, 6:05 p.m.:
We emailed Civil Grand Jury foreperson Jim Glover this afternoon asking for more information, noting that a 2018 press release from the court said:
Beginning this year, the Court implemented a new policy regarding the release of Grand Jury reports during June election years. The policy allows the release of reports until the second Monday in February; reports completed subsequent to that date must be released after the June election.
Is that policy still in place? we asked. And if so, why wasn’t it followed this year?
Glover replied:
That was of great concern to us many months ago. We have a different presiding judge now and the decision was that there would be no blocking of reports because of elections. That might change in the future with yet a different judge, but those are the guidelines we are operating under presently.
Hope that answers your question.
2018 press release FROM THE LOCAL COURT
versus
Individual explanation (which amounts to shit)
Where is the Press Release from The Local Court that changed AFTER 2018… what’s that, the general public was kept in the dark once the new A/C took over AFTER already whistleblowing previous to 2018 election…
PHPA is a dumb fucker thinking people don’t see through the muck…
The Court is complicit in the myriad of local frauds and abuses…no such thing as Justice… bunch of pudd fucker insider shoulder rubbers…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 4, 2022 at 9:46 am
Henchman Of Justice
In one hand, PHPA uses an actual Court Press Release…
In the other hand, PHPA uses an individual’s presentation…
Hmmm, Court transparency or individual’s tag your it presentation…
Ya, such equality……🤷♂️
June 4, 2022 at 2:04 pm
Anonymous
By the way, the question of why they only interviewed her once is, by itself, a perfectly reasonable one. It’s the leap from asking the question to providing the cynical, motive-imputing guessed answer that’s a problem.
I’d like to know the answer too. Perhaps they felt they understood her positions and claims based on her answers in the initial interview and any subsequent non-interview responses (document reqests, etc) and did not see a need for another interview. Did they interview other people more than once, just not her, or was a single interview their approach with all interviewees? Also, interviews are only one form of investigation, reviewing documents is another.
Again, if you’re already firmly committed to the “out-to-get-her” narrative, these kinds of questions and possibilities probably won’t occur to you, because you’ve already fabricated an answer that further supports the narrative.
At any rate, I don’t know what the rules are with respect to civil grand jurors sharing their internal process, but if they can be asked these questions and are allowed to answer, I’m all for it.
June 4, 2022 at 2:18 pm
Anonymous
Jon, I’m not sure what “strong-arming a narrative” is supposed to mean.
But sure, we all have our narratives, I suppose. And I guess mine, here, is that some of you certainly seem to have a consistent “they’re all out to get her” narrative that is strongly coloring your reactions.
And hey, maybe that narrative is right! Maybe the members of the grand jury, or at least “certain individuals” among them, truly are “out to get” Paz Dominguez. But as a non-True-Believer it’s certainly not as slam-dunk obvious to me as it seems to some of you.
So what I’m offering here is a counter-narrative that challenges some of what I see as pretty significant overreaches. Such as Eric’s previous assertion that “certain individuals” on the grand jury “absolutely did rush the conclusion of the report to get it to the public to influence the election.”
That’s possible, of course. But stating the claim as definitively as Eric did assumes facts not in evidence. And where those facts are missing, you folks are filling in with assumptions consistent with the “out to get her” narrative.
June 4, 2022 at 2:22 pm
Mitch
“the question of why they only interviewed her once is, by itself, a perfectly reasonable one.”
Yes, it is. So is the question of why, unless the A-C is misinformed, no one on her staff was interviewed, nor were those from outside organizations brought in to help deal with the county’s financial issues.
So is the question Eric is putting: why was the report released on dump Thursday?
So it the question of why so few people seem to understand that various assertions about delays supposedly imposed by the A-C have been demonstrated to be false, by written documentation showing the delay was actually caused by others, sometimes others in the very departments that were complaining about the delays.
So you put those questions together and you find yourself wondering what’s going on. Unless you have a friend who tells you it’s all the A-C’s fault. In that case, the cognitive load is easiest if you just go with the friend’s report. Be sure to claim others are conspiracy thinkers; it will help keep you from wondering about your friend.
June 4, 2022 at 2:29 pm
Just Watchin
Similarities ?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election/fbi-clears-clinton-in-email-review-two-days-before-election-idUSKBN1310WY
June 4, 2022 at 2:32 pm
Mitch
Oh, those who carefully curate history. My recollection is that the FBI released something to use against Clinton something like ten days prior to the election, and then, two days before the election, had to clarify that this was not a new accusation. Factions, I assume.
June 4, 2022 at 2:34 pm
Anonymous
“Unless you have a friend who tells you it’s all the A-C’s fault. In that case, the cognitive load is easiest if you just go with the friend’s report. Be sure to claim others are conspiracy thinkers; it will help keep you from wondering about your friend.”
Huh? I’m fine with the questions. You lost me with the friend thing.
June 4, 2022 at 2:41 pm
Eric Kirk
JW – two days is way too late. The clusterfuck was the announcement by the FBI that the emails might be evidence of a crime two weeks before the election. Nobody even heard about the Sunday clearance. It has to happen on Thursday, or Friday at the latest.
Purple – One additional question. So we have that Judge Hinrichs held a rule that no GJ report could take place after February of a June election year. Maybe the new judge has the same rule and let it slide, or doesn’t have the same rule. We’re not really clear on that.
But you’re a reasonable person. Which rule do you think is appropriate? Do you think Judge Hinrichs was wrong?
June 4, 2022 at 2:41 pm
Mitch
> I’m fine with the questions.
Great. Because it sounds like you take each one, and say it is conspiratorial to come to a conclusion based on it. But what people seem to me to be doing is weighing the many unusual aspects of the situation, which add up, in some of our minds, to substantial suspicion that something is amiss.
That “something is amiss.” Not that “there is a vast conspiracy.” Just that a few people find it easiest to push blame onto the newcomer who “doesn’t get along,” and use their informal networks as people everywhere do. Conspiracies are hard. Natural fucked-up-ness is much easier and, to me at least, perfectly understandable. And, IMO, once it has established a stronghold at the top levels of an organization, the organization’s usefulness is severely curtailed, sometimes for generations.
June 4, 2022 at 2:56 pm
Anonymous
“One additional question. So we have that Judge Hinrichs held a rule that no GJ report could take place after February of a June election year. Maybe the new judge has the same rule and let it slide, or doesn’t have the same rule. We’re not really clear on that.”
But you’re a reasonable person. Which rule do you think is appropriate? Do you think Judge Hinrichs was wrong?”
Yes. I don’t think incumbents (or anyone else) are entitled to a 3 month special-protection period before elections, in other words I don’t think information available 3 months (or 2 months or 1) before the election should be withheld from the voters. That just seems really excessive and unnecessary and mainly of benefit to incumbents, who already have plenty of advantages.
I would have to give it some more thought to give a definitive answer, but I could probably get behind a rule that said no releases in the week before the election. Maybe two weeks, but that’s a closer call. At some point the “withholding information from the voters” part outwieghs the “unfair because not enough time to respond” part.
But if there is no such rule at the moment, which is what Jim Glover stated in his response to the LoCO inquiry, then I think you have to release it. Otherwise it would be a clear case of the Grand Jury withholding information from the voters at their own whim.
Anyway, it’s certainly a reasonable question, and thanks for saying I’m reasonable…though some here may disagree…heh-heh.
June 4, 2022 at 2:58 pm
Eric Kirk
Your original post said you would call the court to inquire “tomorrow” (which would have been Friday).
So…did you?
I got a gee-I-don’t-know-I’ll-have-my-supervisor-call-you response. No supervisor call so far.
June 4, 2022 at 3:14 pm
Anonymous
Mitch, suspecting that “something seems amiss” is a lot different than flatly staing, as Eric did, that:
““certain individuals” [on the grand jury] “absolutely did rush the conclusion of the report to get it to the public to influence the election.”
or
“The timing of this is corrupt as hell, and each member is part of it”
as HumboldtTurtle claimed.
There are plenty of other examples in this thread that go far beyond merely musing that something “might” be amiss.
As far as the use off the word “conspiracy,” I asked Eric directly if he was accusing the grand jurors of conspiring against Paz-Dominguez. In case you missed it, here’s that exchange:
PA: “So, not a ‘grand conspiracy’ just a conspiracy by ‘certain individuals’ on the grand jury?
Eric”: “Yes, by just a few individuals. And yes, they absolutely did rush the conclusion of the report to get it to the public to influence the election.”
Of course in his next comment, Eric took a very different tack:
“Let’s make something clear – what’s at work here is a culture, not a conspiracy.”
So I guess whether it’s a conspiracy or not depends on whether you ask at 10:18 or 10:55…apparently a lot can change in half an hour!
In all seriousness, I see some significant backpedaling going on here, and that’s fine.
Better than fine really, as I think it represents a recognition that the accusations of wrongdoing against members of the grand jury had far outstripped the alleged evidence of that wrongdoing.
But let’s not pretend that the things that were said upthread weren’t said.
June 4, 2022 at 3:17 pm
Anonymous
I got a gee-I-don’t-know-I’ll-have-my-supervisor-call-you response. No supervisor call so far.
OK thanks. I would like a definitive answer to this too.
June 4, 2022 at 3:18 pm
ambiguous
I think if it were all aboveboard, Glover would have included the judge’s name and a link to the notice or opinion or whatever they are calling it. Something has to be in writing somewhere stating when and why they changed the original ruling. What we got instead was Glover’s statement which means nothing, legally.
June 4, 2022 at 3:23 pm
Mitch
Perhaps others, when agitated, also use hyperbole as much as I am prone to do.
Without wanting to put words in turtle’s mouth, or Eric’s, I suspect that the statement “this is corrupt as hell” is meant to mean “based on my prior experiences, I get the sense that this has, at least, the appearance of corruption, and wish, without much expectation, that the apparent potential of corruption might be investigated further.” Or, I suppose, they might mean “this is corrupt as hell.” I’ll leave it to them.
June 4, 2022 at 3:28 pm
Anonymous
OK ambiguous, it seem like you’re implying that Glover was straight-up lying in his response to the LoCo inquiry. Seems like a pretty straightforward question of fact, not much “ambiguity” in there. I guess we’ll have to see how this plays out on Monday when the court re-opens.
June 4, 2022 at 3:33 pm
Anonymous
OK Mitch, and what is your hyperbole-translation for…
“yes, they absolutely did rush the conclusion of the report to get it to the public to influence the election.”
Because to me this seems like a very straightforward claim, stated as fact, that “certain individuals” “absolutely did” take an action that was specifically intended “to influence the election.”
June 4, 2022 at 3:41 pm
Mitch
Probably: “it sure seems to me they must have rushed the conclusion of the report to get it to the public to influence the election.”
We all go by incomplete information all the time. Seeing a report come out just before an election, while appearing to lack information from people an observer might consider critical information sources, leads some folks to jump to conclusions. I don’t think it’s especially hard to understand. How did you feel when the FBI brought Clinton’s servers back into the limelight just before the very closely fought Presidential election. Did you go, “I suppose it is possible that this is how they were required to handle things,” or did you go “those fucking bastards, I hope they end up in jail?” I said the latter, perhaps you are a better person than I.
June 4, 2022 at 3:50 pm
Anonymous
Well I guess I’m old fashioned in thinking that words actually mean things and that when someone says someone “absolutely did” something, they mean it to be taken as an assertion of fact.
As far as “jumping to conclusions,” well, that’s my whole point. It’s generally best not to.
June 4, 2022 at 4:00 pm
ambiguous
Don’t put words in my mouth, whoever you are. If I thought he was lying, I would have said so. I meant exactly what I said and nothing more or less.
June 4, 2022 at 4:08 pm
Anonymous
As far as the “Comey Letter” of October 28th, as best as I can recall, my reaction was “This stupid thing again?” I wasn’t happy about it.
But I don’t recall jumping to the conclusion that Comey deliberately timed it to harm Clinton’s elections chances.
And I don’t believe he did. I think he had a crappy choice between releasing the information that they were investigating a new angle (and infuriating Democrats) and trying to suppress the information (which would infuriate Republicans) and also had to deal with the high degree of likelihood that if he didn’t release it, it would be leaked anyway, and portrayed as a pro-Clinton cover-up (if you recall, the NYC office of the FBI, apparently replete with Giuliani/Trump supporters, had been leaking like a sieve while spinning like a top).
I’m still not sure what I would have done in his shoes and I’m highly skeptical that it would have worked out any better for Clinton if he had tried to suppress it and it had leaked.
June 4, 2022 at 4:32 pm
Just Watchin
Yep…..
June 4, 2022 at 6:02 pm
Mitch
> …as I can recall, my reaction was “This stupid thing again?”
AFAI can recall, my words were different. You are a better person than I am. In fact, I’m pretty sure I thought, and perhaps even uttered, an obscenity directed at the FBI. I did not have any doubt in my mind that the purpose of the release was to screw Clinton. You may be correct that Comey released it knowing it would be leaked if he did not.
June 5, 2022 at 4:42 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Comey changed the election and history in my opinion and he had no right to. Government actors should know better and the should protect the integrity of election at all costs – all of us should – including that individual who released Trumps taxes (remember that).
It sounds like PA’s position was that Comey isn’t at fault because he was being threatened by Republicans leaking the info. His position should have been “you do you and suffer the consequences, I will not be threatened”.
Here is Michael Medved acknowledging, just Comey’s letter was released, that Comey may have just altered all of American history. (Less than 2 minute clip).
June 5, 2022 at 5:11 am
Anonymous
Jon, you well may be right that the correct thing for Comey to do was not write that letter. But like I said, I’m skeptical that it would have worked out any better for Clinton if the info had instead been leaked by the Trumpers in the NYC office of the FBI, which would have fed a narrative that it was being “covered up” to benefit Clinton.
June 5, 2022 at 6:27 am
Just Watchin
And the slow divorce continues…..
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/desantis-beats-trump-in-2024-straw-poll-a-second-time-at-colorado-conservative-summit/ar-AAY6B6g?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=adf2c29a0abc4e07ab911367a1d8a953
June 5, 2022 at 6:35 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Of course you are right PA as we don’t and can’t know but Comey issuing the letter is much more apt to both become news and change or influence minds. Many people, especially Republicans and conservatives (npp & Dems) care about process. I agree in my heart and mind with Medved’s initial reaction that his decision altered both the fundamentals of the election and, ultimately, the outcome. Can I prove that if some NY branch released the info it wouldn’t have had the same impact? No. but that doesn’t in any way excuse or exculpate Comey who is and forever will be an enemy to democracy in my eyes. (ie I’ve cancelled Comey)
“I’m still not sure what I would have done in his shoes.”
And no I would not have had any empathy about his decision as you did. He had a job to do as a government official privy to information and he failed to do protect that information as it was not ready to be released. Elections clearly are that important and deserve a wide birth wrt when & how information is released, especially elections for US President, but as far as impact on our own lives for the next 4 or arguably 50 years, this A/C election too.
50 years because this election is really about our County’s administrative *culture* where might ultimately makes right and we protect ourselves by limiting what the public gets to see or hear and or we make it clear who is & isn’t favored. It’s *culture* which needs to be challenged, not some nefarious conspiracy nor even specific instances of fraud.
June 5, 2022 at 6:38 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Desantis will never be nominated to the Republican ticket JW, in case you didn’t know. Trump is the default nominee, if he wants it, until you all choose differently. Good luck.
June 5, 2022 at 7:01 am
Anonymous
Hard to imagine weaker evidence of a “divorce” between the GOP and Trump than a “straw poll” showing Trump with 67% support, in which DeSantis gained a whopping 1 point since the same “straw poll” last year.
If there’s a “slow divorce” going on — and I hope there is — it better start picking up speed!
Meanwhile, in the world of actual public opinion polling, the latest national poll (Harris) shows Trump leading DeSantis by 29 points. The next most recent poll (YouGov) shows the same lead of 29 points.
DeSantis’ best hope (and Pence’s, etc.) is that Trump simply decides not to run. It sounds like we may find out about that sooner than we thought.
June 5, 2022 at 7:03 am
Henchman Of Justice
Ah, PHPA avoids the pist 2018 Local Court press release question, running off to national politics for cover…
June 5, 2022 at 7:05 am
Henchman Of Justice
back to TDS again…TDS gets triggered when local election questions and answers are avoided…
June 5, 2022 at 7:20 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Credit where it is due. At least JW wants a divorce. It’s not nothing.
June 5, 2022 at 7:34 am
Henchman Of Justice
OK Mitch, and what is your hyperbole-translation for…
“yes, they absolutely did rush the conclusion of the report to get it to the public to influence the election.”
Because to me this seems like a very straightforward claim, stated as fact, that “certain individuals” “absolutely did” take an action that was specifically intended “to influence the election.”
the process was administered, directed by those to have occur what has occured byprocess and timing…100% INTENT INVOLVED…
…surely all people involved and the outside world see the same election on the horizon… and yet, a super-majority of facts stay hidden away for the deprived electorate…
PHPA is a government supporter all the way, even when facts show all makes and models of politics can lie, cheat, steal and abuse…
…at least PHPA stays honest with regard to supporting government no matter what.. a small fish in a drying-up Lake Mead…
June 5, 2022 at 7:43 am
Anonymous
Indeed. I just wish there was better evidence that this “slow divorce” was acually underway.
The only really compelling data point I’ve seen so far was the Georgia primary in which Trump-endorsed Perdue got absolutely crushed by Kemp.
June 5, 2022 at 8:35 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
It’s hard to listen to the LoCO discussion of the Karen’s race for re-election in their podcast today. They are way off, especially Tom Wheeler whom I hold in very high regard.
June 5, 2022 at 8:49 am
Mitch
Jon> “This election is really about our County’s administrative *culture* where might ultimately makes right and we protect ourselves by limiting what the public gets to see or hear and or we make it clear who is & isn’t favored. It’s *culture* which needs to be challenged, not some nefarious conspiracy nor even specific instances of fraud.”
Well-stated and right on. In my opinion, this is a perfect summation of the A/C election.
June 5, 2022 at 9:13 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Thanks Mitch, credit to Eric for pointing this out. I’m mostly just repeating his thought, and my current experience (and yours too I know) buttress this.
And I really can’t thank Eric enough for his public interest advocacy over the past few months. I expect the TS to let us down, not LoCO too. Eric has been the only media source of well, reality imo.
June 5, 2022 at 9:20 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
On a related topic to using government to impact elections, I *just* found out televised Congressional hearings on Jan 6th are about to begin next week.
My recommendation to Democrats, do what you need to do, don’t make it a show or attempt to win political points. You can do all that when you are off the Hill in populist appeals to the electorate explaining why it’s important to vote for Democrats rather than Republicans.
June 5, 2022 at 9:25 am
Mitch
The local ad-supported press is supported by the advertising class, which includes the business community and the county government. Plain old taxpayers don’t buy ads. Homeless people and addicts, generally, don’t buy ads. I’m not saying the local press is corrupt, because I don’t think it generally is. But I do believe it is intertwined with many of the people who, in county government, make things near-hopeless. So many of the county’s decent-paying jobs are via the county government. That’s who they hear, those are the people in their circles. The “free” business-supported press is a brilliant stabilizer in a fucked up system.
June 5, 2022 at 10:10 am
Henchman Of Justice
WADR, EK’s thoughts on “administration” is nothing others have not already brought to light… Henchy has been one of the many others with these administration critiques since the 1980’s…in fact, Henchy has raised the administration issue much more so than EK… fact…
June 5, 2022 at 10:33 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
There is no such thing as an advertising class.
June 5, 2022 at 11:01 am
Mitch
noun
1.
a set or category of things having some property or attribute in common and differentiated from others by kind, type, or quality.
“the accommodations were good for a hotel of this class”
2.
the system of ordering a society in which people are divided into sets based on perceived social or economic status.
“people who are socially disenfranchised by class”
June 5, 2022 at 11:08 am
Mitch
What percentage of the population, Jon, do you think regularly takes out quarter to full page advertisements, or thirty second to one minute ads on tv, radio, and video? I’ve never taken out such an ad. No one I know has ever taken out such an ad. But government officials and managers get to decide where such ads will run, as do business owners and managers.
Some things are mostly invisible because we are swimming in them. One such thing is that we obtain our information from people who are often dedicated to the public interest, but whose publishers/employers make their living from the advertising class. If that weren’t the water through which we all swim, all our lives, perhaps we’d notice it more.
June 5, 2022 at 11:11 am
Mitch
Another thing I’ve noticed, Jon, is the fluidity of the boundary between government and business. You run for Congress, vote for coal, and then get hired as a coal lobbyist, or become a Director on the board of a coal company. Or vice versa.
June 5, 2022 at 11:15 am
Mitch
The only way I think someone could fail to notice this, Jon, is if they are more focused on the labels that interest them, than on the reality that is happening all the time. Then, you can say something like “government is to help people” and “business is to make a profit.” That’s not been my experience of reality; I wish it had been. My experience of reality is that there are people who want everyone to flourish, people who want themselves and their family and neighborhood to flourish, and people who want themselves to flourish. Of course, everyone is a mix of all three desires, but I think some might understand what I mean. And, as I grew older, I noticed that those seem to be the categories that are relevant, not the ones that we label as left, moderate, and right wing.
June 5, 2022 at 5:28 pm
Henchman Of Justice
What is the name of the Judge…the Judge HCGJ Head Glover refers to?🤷♂️
June 6, 2022 at 6:37 am
Carol Conners
Mitch, your last paragraph is music to my ears. 💯
June 6, 2022 at 6:39 am
Carol Conners
Spot on, Humboldt Turtle.
June 6, 2022 at 6:43 am
Carol Conners
I believe I heard Karen state during her town hall that there was no signature by a judge. Feel free to correct me if I heard it wrong.
June 6, 2022 at 6:48 am
Carol Conners
What on earth is wrong with an opinion?
June 6, 2022 at 6:49 am
Carol Conners
What is wrong with you?
June 6, 2022 at 6:51 am
Henchman Of Justice
Thanks CC!
June 6, 2022 at 7:16 am
Carol Conners
We don’t know, Henchman! And KPD doesn’t know either.
June 6, 2022 at 7:42 am
Mitch
Thanks, Carol. FYI, in my desktop view it’s not obvious to whom you’re responding on some of your comments. You may be responding to trolls who are invisible, to me at least. (It’s possible I’ve filtered some people out long ago, without remembering.)
June 6, 2022 at 7:44 am
Eric Kirk
Carol – a judge may have signed off on it, but the signature was not provided with the report as it has with the other Grand Jury reports she has been sent.
June 6, 2022 at 7:57 am
Carol Conners
Thank you for clarifying that, Eric.
June 6, 2022 at 8:01 am
Carol Conners
Mitch, I am writing on my WordPress Ap on my phone.. I believe that you have done a yeoman’s job as well. I also wish to thank you for your work with the Humboldt Transparency Project!
June 6, 2022 at 11:03 am
Mitch
You’re very welcome Carol. For many years now, though, their tech guy is Wes Rishel and I’ve stepped back.